Typically when we we're talking about the Environmental Protection Agency and gasoline, we're talking about the EPA's push to increase the amount of ethanol in gasoline used around the country or its efforts to increase fuel efficiency. However, the ethanol mandate isn't the only fuel agenda that the EPA is pursuing. The EPA is now proposing rules for cleaner gasoline that would go into effect by 2017.

This time around, automotive manufacturers are backing the new clean gasoline rules. The EPA has reportedly been working on the new rules for over 18 months and the rules would eventually require a two-thirds reduction of sulfur in gasoline by 2017.

According to the EPA, that sort of reduction in sulfur content in gasoline would be the equivalent of removing 33 million cars from the highways around the country. Automotive manufacturers also say that reducing the level sulfur in gasoline will improve vehicle performance.

Automaker associations supporting the new rules said in a meeting concerning the proposed regulations, "Reducing sulfur yields immediate and future public benefits. Ultra-low sulfur gasoline is already available; costs to implement nationwide are overstated."

Sulfur byproducts in gasoline reduce the effectiveness of catalytic converters and increase tailpipe emissions according automakers. The rules would also boost the durability of catalytic converters.

Refineries are already producing ultra-low sulfur fuel for use in California, the European Union, and Japan.

Predictably, the oil industry is opposing the proposed rules. Industry officials say that these changes would require capital investments of between $10 billion and $17 billion and would result in recurring annual costs of between $5 billion and $13 billion. The net effect according to the petroleum industry would be an increase in the cost of fuel per gallon of between $.12 and $.25.

LOL you think they lowered sulphur content out of the goodness of their heart?

Sulphur regulations have put lower limits all over the world. Canada first had a 500ppm limit, then 15ppm. Europe is mostly 10-15ppm. The US is 50-80ppm.

And while Reclaimer will whine about the EPA making diesel more expensive due to emission standards, diesels in Europe also can't handle the higher sulfur content of US diesel because there is a lack of strong mandate. That's why they're on the side of the EPA here, as mentioned in the article.

Why would the free market have any incentive to reduce sulphur content by itself? You think consumers are going to bring their car's gas to the lab and get it tested and keep checking up for the various stations they frequent?